A 'Different' Series By Sushmita #3: Kidnapping Vs Abduction

Coverage of this Article

-DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KIDNAPPING AND ABDUCTION

CASE LAWS FOR KIDNAPPING

-Before we continue, it's worth noting that an exception was established in the case of Chadrakala Menon and others v. Vipin Menon.

CASE LAWS FOR ABDUCTION

-The court held in Shri Moni Neog and others v. the State of Assam that Sanjay Ghose's abductors abducted him with the intent to murder him, or at the very least had knowledge that he might be murdered or had put him in danger of being murdered.

CONCLUSION

-Kidnapping and abduction are harmful activities that restrict a person's freedom. Sections 359 to 369 go a long way in ensuring people's liberty.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KIDNAPPING AND ABDUCTION

CASE LAWS FOR KIDNAPPING

• Before we continue, it's worth noting that an exception was established in the case of Chadrakala Menon and others v. Vipin Menon. The appellant Chandrakala was married to Vipin Menon in this case. They were both well-employed and settled in the United States. They had a daughter, who was transferred to live with her maternal grandparents in India. Unfortunately, disagreements emerged between them, and they chose to split up. The girl remained to reside with her maternal grandparents while Vipin Menon filed a custody suit for his daughter. Vipin Menon took his daughter to a different state while the custody case was still being resolved. His grandparents filed a kidnapping case against him. The court, however, determined that Vipin Menon was the child's natural guardian. His grandparents filed a kidnapping case against him. The court, however, determined that Vipin Menon was the child's natural guardian.
• In the case of Smt Suman and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court rendered an unusual decision. It was decided that if a minor girl, who is 17 years old and mature enough to understand the consequences and rationale behind her actions, leaves her parents' custody to live with a boy who has not subjected her to any pressure, inducement, or other form of coercion, it does not constitute an offence under section 361 of the IPC and is not punishable.

CASE LAWS FOR ABDUCTION

• The court held in Shri Moni Neog and others v. the State of Assam that Sanjay Ghose's abductors abducted him with the intent to murder him, or at the very least had knowledge that he might be murdered or had put him in danger of being murdered. It also stated that whether he was murdered or not is immaterial. What matters is that the kidnappers made no indication that they would spare his life at any point. As a consequence, the court found the defendants guilty and sentenced them to life in prison and a fine of Rs. 2000 apiece.
• The court concluded in Netra Pal v. State (National Capital Territory of Delhi) that the mere retrieval of a letter allegedly written by the appellant demanding Rs. 50000 for the child's safety and return is insufficient to cover "to pay the ransom." A kidnapper's demand is a necessary component of the crime since demand must be communicated in order for the ransom to be paid.

CONCLUSION

Kidnapping and abduction are harmful activities that restrict a person's freedom. Sections 359 to 369 go a long way in ensuring people's liberty. They provide kidnapping and abduction protection for youngsters. It is critical to prevent these heinous crimes and to halt the rise of the culture of kidnapping and abduction, particularly when it is carried out for forced marriages, forced sexual intercourses, and forced beg, among other things.

Despite the fact that Indian laws ban abduction and kidnapping, more than 100,000 kidnapping and abduction instances have been reported in India since 2005. People have continued to take advantage of youngsters' vulnerable age to abduct, exploit, and compel them to commit heinous deeds. Such offences are an affront to citizens' rights and freedom, and they must be avoided. These offences are punishable under sections 359 to 374 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.